(UA) Survey Time

[Timothy Toner]

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl L. Congdon <carlcong at nni.com>
To: Unknown Armies List <UA at purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu>
Date: Friday, February 19, 1999 10:43 AM
Subject: (UA) Survey Time


>Earl Wajenberg wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, I think there is reasonably good evidence for
>> ESP and similar phenomena, though the scientific establishment is
>> in heavy denial about it.  I have had a few experiences of my
>> own that seemed telepathic or precognitive.  I think, however,
>> that such things are an unexplored side of nature, not supernatural.
>
>    That is *exactly* my opinion on the "supernatural": that which has
>not thoroughly been explored. I believe that there is some truth to
>psychic ability, but I fully deny any afterlife/ supra-natural causes.
>All things are of nature, period. No god(s), spirits, or bending the
>laws of physics by dancing for rain. In fact, if nanotechnology becomes
>reality, biology will be conquered soon after, and maybe then scientists
>can get around to studying where exactly the roots of "psychic powers"
>lie. Stripped down, it's *all* physics.

Which has always amused me.  I took a great course towards my Masters degree
called Communication.  This was a heavy course, considering the classes in
general were intended to get people working as library aides jobs as
full-time librarians.  We read, "Reality Isn't What it Used to Be," "The
Popular Book," (a wickedly cool, sadly out of print work which looks back
100 years (in 1950) to see who the Stephen Kings and Danielle Steels were of
that era -- and there were some.  Finally, we had to read the Masters thesis
of the Professor who wrote the course -- and damn if it didn't twist my mind
like a pretzel.  One of the ideas explored was that the concept of religion
as we know it is skewed by culture.  We "talk" about it, but we don't really
know what it means.  Since this was a course dealing heavily with
deconstruction, dictionary definitions were less than helpful.  The prof
basically postulated that religion 'merely' is  the "institution in
any...society that produces, organizes, adapts, and disseminates religious
stories, that is, stories about ultimate realities.  All societies are based
upon stories of the cosmic and natural orders.  THese stories may reside in
revelation, in scientific or philosophical treatises, in collections of mth
and legend, in epic poetry, or in statements of self-evident principles.
Regardless of how they are formulated or packaged, stories of the origin and
organization of the universe, the nature of the material world, the nature
of man, and the purpose of human existence are all religious stories.  The
social strucutres or complexes that produce, organize, adapt, and
disseminate these stories are religious institutions."

Ergo, science is a religion, since it is how we come to know Truth (and note
that it doesn't have to be Absolute Truth, since the lack of Absolutes is
part of our stories).  In the past, if something was unknown, it was because
Ghod did not deem it wise we know, and woebetide the mortal who stole fire
from heaven.  All thing could be known, in the fullness of time, and with
Ghod's great Wisdom.  Today we say the same thing, except that we couch it
different.  All things are knowable, given time and a deeper understanding
of physics.  We're really not that far from the monkeys, as they crouch in
our caves and pick lice off one another.  We just get around faster in
flashier cars.